“As Donald Trump nears a final decision on the Paris climate agreement, top corporate executives are mounting a last-minute push aimed at persuading the president that the U.S. has more to lose from abandoning the accord,” Jennifer A. Dlouhy reports for Bloomberg News. “The appeals from chief executives such as Tesla Inc.’s Elon Musk, Tim Cook of Apple Inc. and Dow Chemical Co.’s Andrew Liveris come as Trump’s advisers also present him with closing arguments on the potential risks and rewards of remaining a party to the global pact. ”

“Cook placed a call to the White House on Tuesday to urge the president to keep the U.S. in the agreement, according to a person familiar with the move,” Dlouhy reports. “Liveris was the driving force behind a letter from 30 major company executives backing the deal. And Musk tweeted Wednesday that he has ‘“done all I can to advise directly to’ Trump. If the U.S. leaves Paris, Musk said he would drop participation in White House advisory councils.”

“The executives are trying to capitalize on Trump’s ‘America first’ ideology by warning that a withdrawal would put the U.S. at a disadvantage in a global race to develop and deploy clean-energy technology, potentially ceding that market opportunity to China, the world’s top emitter of greenhouse gas emissions,” Dlouhy reports. “The president’s verdict will be driven by ‘what’s best for the United States,’ said Gary Cohn, his top economic adviser, during Trump’s recent trip abroad. ”

When we measure our carbon footprint, we include hundreds of suppliers, millions of customers, and hundreds of millions of devices. And we’re always looking for ways to make the biggest difference in five major areas: manufacturing, product use, facilities, transportation, and recycling.
To reduce our carbon footprint, we design each generation of our products to be as energy efficient as possible. We’re sourcing lower-carbon materials to make our devices, we’re partnering with suppliers to add clean energy to their facilities, and we produce and procure clean, renewable energy for 96 percent of the electricity used at our global facilities.

The Paris Agreement does next to nothing in terms of binding the signatories to take action on limiting emissions. The chief legal obligation is contributing to a $100 billion “green fund” for developing nations. It’s a poorly veiled way to extract money from the haves and redistribute it to the have nots. Would-be Robin Hood Obama didn’t bother sending the accord to the Senate for ratification either, knowing what its fate would be. In every meaningful way, the document is merely hortatory.

The Climate Change Fraud has two purposes:
• Financing, through an unrepresented “carbon tax,” the financing and acceptance of global governance.
• The intentional castration of the economic power of the West, especially the United States.

I think it is rather a shame that you guys, like all too many Americans, never take the time to go outside and look at the world around you. If you did, you would have noticed that the flora and fauna in your neighborhood (and every other one on earth) has substantially changed within your lifetime.

When I look around my neighborhood in Central Texas today, I see plants and animals that would have been common 50 to 100 miles south of here as recently as 40 years ago when I arrived. The species that were endemic here then have also shifted that far north. Wildflowers bloom weeks earlier than those species did here in the 1970s. If I lived in Alaska or along a low-lying coast, the changes would be even more dramatic.

That is not a “fraud” or “fake news.” It is quite readily observable by anyone with eyes to see (and ears to hear bird calls).

Applying Occam’s Razor, the simplest (and therefore most likely) explanation for those observed facts is that it is warmer, on average, than it was a few decades ago. Direct measurements of global heat content on the surface, in the air, under the seas, and by satellite also support that simplest hypothesis. There are no reliable data indicating anything else.

The late Dr. Occam would also point out that the rise in temperatures is roughly proportional to the rise in the percentage of atmospheric gasses that are known to trap heat. “Known,” not “hypothesized,” because the Greenhouse Effect has been universally understood and experimentally verified since the 1880s. In turn, the rise in those gasses is generally proportional to the increased human use of fossil fuels that produce the gasses, compounded by the destruction of vegetation that absorbs them.

While it is true that correlation is not necessarily causation, nobody has offered a simpler (and therefore more likely) explanation of why temperatures, greenhouse gas percentage, and greenhouse gas production should all be increasing together. Given the known laws of chemistry and physics, the linkage seems inevitable. It is hardly surprising that at least 19 out of 20 scientists who study climate professionally believe that the correlation actually does indicate causation in this case.

It is perhaps equally significant that those who do not accept this link have not joined in adopting any single alternative explanation for the known phenomena; there are almost as many theories as there are dissenting voices. Most of those theories either ignore key data, key facts of physical science, or both.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions about science and politics, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Climate change denial is a pure expression of political opinion with no substantial factual basis. When you have facts, and not just conspiracy theories, everyone will be glad to listen. In the meantime, go outside and look around. Then try to convince us that what everyone else sees as obviously true is somehow factually mistaken.

Those who fail to see the benefits of moving to sustainable energy are no different from people in the horse carriage business who, years ago, lamented the introduction of new-fangled automobiles. Or people in the slide-rule business when electronic calculators came along. Technology does not move backwards. And the very few times in history that technology has gone backwards (usually due to politics), it has not done so for long.

Economics does not care what you, or anyone else, thinks. And economics, like technology, generally moves forward. Fossil fuels are going the way of the dodo bird. And for very good reasons. The economics of sustainable energy are here, now.

Fortunes are made by those who embrace important emerging technologies. Firearms. Trains. Planes. Computers. Sustainable energy. Those who fail to embrace important emerging technologies will be left in the dust of history. Why would America want to stick its head in the sand and leave emerging sustainable energy to, say, China ad Europe to dominate?

Just adding another tax to the very people who create jobs and make the country prosper will do NOTHING to reduce pollution. Show me evidence that this has any impact on the environment. Just another virtue signal paraded by progressives to convince themselves they are so much better than the rest of us. Peoples jobs and the economy must be weighed into this equally. There are already strict environmental laws in place. Use them!

Even if you choose to ignore the possible risks of changing climate, one can always ask himself: Are you better prepared as a nation if you are entirely reliant on one and only one set of non-renewable energy sources? Or does it make strategic sense to develop a diverse portfolio of technologies that not only makes your nation less reliant on imported hydrocarbons, but also able to profitably export energy system to other nations?

Let’s just leave it at that. I won’t bother getting into the dividends that a clean environment gives us. If you don’t believe in a clean environment, then by all means, fire your maid and stop using your dishwasher. Eat off of dirty china with tarnished silverware. what doesn’t make you sick will make you stronger, right?

Everyone benefits in the long run. As Steve famously quoted Gretsky, “Don’t skate to where the puck is, skate to where it will be.” Clean energy is the future; we need to incur short-term costs (capital investments) for long-term benefits (a sustainable environmental).

I’ve always thought that quote was interesting in that Gretsky obviously trusted his teammates to put the puck “Where it will be”. The same may not be true of large companies that try to guess the target market.

That’s a really poor way to look at things. By your rationale we shouldn’t drill for oil anymore either because the people who own oil companies will benefit. We shouldn’t buy cars cause the people that make cars will benefit. We shouldn’t buy food because the people who produce food will benefit. We shouldn’t build houses because the people that produce lumber will benefit. That’s just the way it works. Just because someone benefits doesn’t make it bad.

It is unfortunate that Climate Change became such a deeply political topic. This was due to leftist meddling in the science mind you, which led to the conservative suspicion of the “science.”

Politics and science don’t mix. Politicians debate and seek consensus. Scientists seek only facts, and they don’t sweep some facts under the rug in order to generate consensus. That is politics.

This, of course, led to any number of data manipulation scandals, media miss-coverage, and the typical leftist name calling and abusive alarmist behavior, making climate politics look even more untrustworthy for conservatives.

When you add that every solution appeared to be some kind of tax or money transfer in disguise, then it became difficult to trust any of it, unless of course, it bolstered your already deeply held political beliefs as it does for most climate acolytes, alarmists, priests, etc.

Even if you go to these people and say, “Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the warming of the earth is primarily due to anthropogenic reasons. For the hell of it let us err on the side of caution and assume that human activity is the big cause here. What should the solutions be?”

Instead of talking about removing CO2 and other greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere, they start talking about moving money around, from corporations to the government, and from the government to other nations. Which does nothing to cut down on global warming. It’s just a money grab.

This causes climate politics to take on the face of global socialism. No, the United States should not be a party to this. Let the Eurosocialists and all their friends trade around their own money.

The U.S. instead should look for ways to reward corporations for cutting down on greenhouse gas output in the form of lower taxes etc. The U.S. should invest in VIABLE DEMONSTRABLE technologies approved by scientists, not crony capitalists. The U.S. should make it so that any scientist who wishes to do research that does not push the popular viewpoint is not afraid to do so.

Science isn’t about consensus. We all know what happens when everyone agrees that the sun revolves around the Earth or that the Earth is flat. People who find the support of other theories are called heretics or deniers or blasphemers. The U.S. should share information freely but stay the hell away from “accords” and such and pursue climate issues as a SCIENCE ISSUE. Not a political forum.

Our government shouldn’t run around making promises we can’t keep without hurting many people.

If Apple and others (follow the money…) are concerned that their heavy investments in green technology might not pay off if the U.S. isn’t represented, they can buy their own tickets and go to Paris and pledge their own money and bad mouth Trump all they want.

Gee, I just thought it was oil and coal companies, and the billionaires behind them, who didn’t want anything to diminish the value of all the stuff still in the ground. Turns out it was those pesky scientists all along!

(Just like all those fake news claims about tobacco and cancer. Damn scientists sticking their nose into corporate profits for what…research dollars, that’s what!)

Exxon got the message loud and clear this week when 60% of its investors demanded that management report on its climate changing emissions. Despite decades of stonewalling, corporate leaders now have no choice but to respond to investors, their scientists, and their consumers who now see before their eyes the mistakes of old tech and the options for new ways of doing things.

So you choose to point your scorn for new knowledge about the climate and pollution against the messengers who report their findings? You have the audacity to accuse scientists of swindling the public? Apple is sitting on piles of cash, not Bill Nye. You show me a billionaire scientist. Or solar panel installer, or wind turbine engineer. Sustainable low pollution technologies are taking off because they make sense. It’s a grass roots phenomenon driven as much by customers demand for clean efficient products as anything else. Nobody likes smog. Nobody likes burning gasoline sitting on congested roads at endless strings of red lights. Nobody likes to be taken advantage of by monopoly utilities companies. And nobody likes to see lung disease, superfund sites, and all the externality costs that old wasteful industrial giants passed onto taxpayers. Or do you?

It is also significant that virtually all of the major American energy companies have been lobbying the Trump Administration to maintain the Paris accords. They believe that their long-term welfare depends on diversification, and that diversification will be harmed by government interference in the free market by promoting outmoded energy sources.

As the former CEO of ExxonMobile, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has (along with Ivanna Trump) been the strongest advocate of the Paris goals within the Administration.

Thousands of scientific studies have shown the link, and shown the damage. The same scientists who showed that the ozone hole was real, showed how to fix it, and then showed how the fix has been working.

Science. You either believe in it, or you don’t. And if you don’t, why the hell are you using a Mac?

Politics is a religion. The most unbalanced (like botty) are just like religious zealots from Christianity or Islam. You have to understand you can’t listen to them. They can only see what they want to see. They are blind to reality.

botvinnik

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 6:53 am ·

Here’s some REALITY for you, jackass:
“Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg thinks there’s a “55 percent chance” President Trump will be reelected in 2020.”

you lose.

again.

Gstarr

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 9:50 pm ·

You assume I voted for Hilliary.
You lose.
Again.
You see, choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. I choose not to choose evil. I don’t participate in your religion.

Already proven time and again and again. And there are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see. Key phrase: Willful ignorance.

But for those who have read about and understand SCIENCE, here’s another depiction of coral bleaching, a dye off of coral first observed in the 1980s and now found to occur worldwide, specifically because of increased [CO2].

Big Oil has received huuuge tax breaks all the way back to 1916. Tax breaks were $1.9 billion per year (in today’s dollars), on average, from 1916 through 1931 alone. Anyone who reads widely and has an open mind knows this. It has been going on for decades. Check out the “depletion allowance” that let oil companies deduct 27.5 % (later: 23%) from gross revenues ***before*** calculating taxes.

Dear Mr Ignoramous,
You are very mature. When you cannot argue the issue, (1) say something nonsensical (“[my] pontificating humiliation? — no idea what you are trying to say; do you even have a clue, or are you just trying to sound sophisticated?, (2) change the topic, and (3) call someone a name. Very mature, indeed.

Address the issue. Big Oil has had humongous Federal tax breaks for decades. And all you can snivel about is some relatively small money spent to research and develop sustainable energy.

Incidentally, have you seen the video clip of a Tesla Model X towing a 5000 pound boat over a mountain in Norway? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=op2JZi7zMbM Pretty cool. (The video of the Tesla X doing 153 mph on the German Autobahn is also pretty amazing.) The point is simply that electric cars and sustainable energy are here and they are not going anywhere. You can pout and call people all the names you want and it will not change these essential facts.

Dean Clark

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 9:55 pm ·

Dear Mr. Lying Hypocrite: Please let me know when you have taken all of the myriad, wonderful products and services of the petroleum industry out of your life.

My government investing in my country’s future? Isn’t that what governments are for? Did you forget that? You and TowerTone should go have a gingko tea party.

GoeB

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 9:14 pm ·

Spot on, Botty.

Your post to DC gave me pause for thought and raised an interesting double standard.

Have you noticed it is inconceivable how the left exclusively denigrates corporations making profits as evil money. On the flip side of the earning coin they NEVER denigrate fleecing of taxpayer pockets making government money and no IRS accountability as evil?

Uneven and unequal …

Leftist exclusive denigrater of corporate profits ???

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 9:43 pm ·

You do not know what you are talking about. Why do you suppose so many CEOs of major corporations in Silicon Valley just implored Trump to remain in the Paris Climate accord?

These are not leftist rebels who think profit is evil.

GoeB

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 10:08 pm ·

Obvious you missed the core point of my post that the left only has a problem with businesses working hard making honest money and no problem with government picking taxpayer pockets.

It does not matter what highly profitable Silicon Valley firms (LEFT DEMOCRATS) think of company piles of profit. Can you say protecting their own interests?

What matters is who stands to gain and who stands to lose and where the money comes from …

No, my mind is open. That’s the difference around here. When I first attended a lecture on what was originally called ‘The Green House Effect’, I was a vocal skeptic. The researchers did their best to tear me a new one. But I insisted: Show Me The Data!

Eventually, the theories were collaborated beyond the nth degree and it was only the carbon fuel apologists who were left in denial, clearly for the sake of monetary gain.

I’ve frequently pointed out the blatant visual fact of ocean coral reef devastation that has ALREADY occurred around the entire Earth. The reasons why are ALL due to increased [CO2] with no room for denial. You can SEE the total destruction. Lie to yourself all you like. It’s an entirely human trait.

But reality IS. Deal with it and stop being among the selfish fools.

GoeB

Wednesday, May 31, 2017 - 9:09 pm ·

Hey, I’m as environment friendly and dedicated as they come. Volunteer numerous hours yearly to a couple causes. Thanks for a detailed response.

My faith has been shaken because science, governments, politics and big money all collided on this issue.

The coral graphics you posted are well done, visually speaking. I can produce the same graphics in less than two hours. What does that tell you? The science conclusion behind visual props is what concerns me. BIG TIME.

Sorry, still a skeptic until I find untainted science and evidence embraced by both major political parties … 🌿

Sean

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 12:56 am ·

That’s some condition you’ve set up.

“Sorry, still a skeptic until I find untainted science and evidence embraced by both major political parties” … I’m just stick with the most extreme right-wing, pro-oil, pro big industry point of view.

GoeB

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 8:21 pm ·

Well, thanks for the compliment, Sean.

I don’t get how fast you pulled the trigger that I should stick with all you HATE.

If you don’t, and you have proven it by your response, get the essence of truth in my post — I’ll gladly spell it out for you.

Politics has NOTHING to do with the issue. Facts and fair science is all that matters. Clear enough for you label slinger?

TxUser

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 2:38 am ·

GoeB,

If you think that photographs of bleached coral—the existence of which nobody on earth except possibly you denies—are “visual props,” what sort of evidence would you accept?

The answer, obviously, is that you will never accept any evidence that does not support your prior conclusions reached without any evidence. While scientists argue from facts to theories, you want to argue the other direction. No fact can be true unless it fits your a priori hypothesis. Inconvenient facts are “fake news.”

You claim that your faith has been shaken because “science, governments, politics and big money” agree on this issue.
Doesn’t that wide consensus make their position more likely, rather than less likely?

Your position sounds like the folks who refused to accept that the new Congressman-Elect from Montana assaulted a reporter, despite the testimony of the victim, three (unimpeachably conservative) eyewitnesses, an audio tape, and the suspect’s apology. “Why didn’t the newspaper reporter make a videotape?” Of course, if a videotape existed, they would explain that away, too.

Facts are such inconvenient things.

GoeB

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 8:35 pm ·

Hey brainless. Your conflating, extrapolating and inaccurate conclusions, of what I post is a serial staple from you. Another Libtard stalker, whatever.

Read carefully: I don’t care and you don’t matter …

Don't you read, GoeB ?

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 2:04 pm ·

GoeB — Don’t you read? Haven’t you read the news coming out of Australia about the Great Barrier Reef there? And the Caribbean and other places where coral reefs are dying? I mean, they’ve only been talking about it for years now…

Geez, Louise, talk about selective reading. And you try to convince us that you have an open mind? ha ha ha ha ha. Sorry; not believable.

GoeB

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 9:38 pm ·

Don’t jump to conclusions.

Fully aware of the change in coral reefs.

My suspicious and critical thinking antenna is tuned to a factual cause, not a political construct …

Please, do a web search on ‘coral reefs carbonic acid’. There aren’t just visuals. ‘Coral bleaching’ was never only about water temperature. That fluctuates constantly throughout the day at every coral reef. What remains a constant is pH. This is where increased [CO2] meets the road at this very moment in time. Ignoring it is yet another litmus test for ignorance. It’s not disputable. It’s science. It’s not propaganda. It’s verified research. Etc.

GoeB

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 9:46 pm ·

Thanks. Need to research further …

GoeB

Saturday, June 3, 2017 - 11:53 am ·

On another thread from @Nuetella”

Except for the prominent NASA scientists who quit his job because he said the entire thing was a fraud and junk science. Peers like that aren’t allowed into ‘peer review’.

“But no one ever brings that fact up. If you don’t agree, you’re ousted so that you can’t be a “disagreeing peer”. Peer groups are manipulated into agreement by excising any peer that disagrees. The Emperor always has clothes. Or else”

My point DC, like other skeptics who challenge the global warming status quo are hounded out and discredited. Having faith in science and government institutions infiltrated by the left under eight years of Obama, difficult to know what is pure science and what is science politics. That’s my main concern and certainly I am a huge environment advocate …

Academia can be a nightmare of conformity. When I considered teaching as a professor I turned away with a level of disgust. There are certainly great places to teach where one is encouraged to break out of ‘the academic system’, but they are relatively rare.

IOW: I entirely see your point. The fact that all of this is being discussed within the framework of politics, where it’s always party time! exaggerates the conformity problem.

Thanks for thinking GeoB and sharing. I very much enjoy being prodded and informed into better understanding. That’s a relative rarity as well.

Marsha Blackburn- with her degree in Home Economics (I am not kidding) from Mississippi State University (i’m sure she has a cowbell) is one the the most brazen Politiwhores for cash yet seen in Congress.

She is the bought and paid for toady for Comcast and AT&T (as of 2017, $693,000 from the TeleCom/ISP lobby). She is a favorite K-Street Whore in D.C – otherwise she is a favorite of the NeoCON Reich Wing.

Do not try to confuse Republican beliefs with peer reviewed science. Gawd told them is is all theirs to use up.

TxUser

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 1:03 pm ·

DavGreg,

When Ms. Blackburn was in college, it was almost impossible for Southern women with an interest in chemistry to major in that subject. They were forced into Home Economics, and then took as many chemistry courses as possible under the pretext that it was relevant to cooking. That is an indictment of the sexist society that many of us grew up in, not of her scientific knowledge.

The first woman president of the University of Texas at Austin, Dr. Lorena Rogers, was a very accomplished scientist who had degrees in Home Economics.

I recently had the displeasure of Marsha Politiwhore shill S.J.Res. 34 on the floor of the House of Representatives. It’s the bill that revoked our citizen rights to privacy on the Internet, as defined by the FCC. She got called on her lies that the FTC have any ability to protect citizen privacy rights. They don’t.

Both worthless parties lie for their own benefit. We The People suffer for their corruption.

A 2009 poll by Harris Interactive found that 39% of Americans agreed with the statement that “God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals, and the first two people within the past 10,000 years.

Re Derek:
Have you noticed that ConservaBots automatically go into full attack mode if you do not fully embrace every iota of Dogma and accuse you of being some kind of crazy left wing loon as if a country of over 300 million can only hold two sets of political views.

To those living in Mom’s Basement even as they spout Ayn Rand and related BS the reality that they are not centrist, or even center right- but radical- has never occurred to them or been entertained by them. They see me- a center left progressive- as some wild eyed radical despite my having worked for the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, having served 8 years in the US Army during the Cold War Era- holding US and NATO Top Secret Clearances, having never voted for Obama or either Clinton.

They are the living definition of an ideologue – totally rigid and blind to any other possibility. What is most amazing is that many such people claim the US is the “greatest country on earth” but do not have a passport and have never travelled overseas extensively or lived overseas.

We saw such people in the Service- they called them Barracks Rats. Despite being stationed in Europe, Japan or somewhere else, they stayed largely on US installations for their entire tour as if they were in Georgia or Texas and watched American TV and Movies and went to the on base clubs. With a place many save up their whole lives to travel to just outside the gate- their incurious minds or fear kept them inside a prison of their own making.

,,,as if a country of over 300 million can only hold two sets of political views

Oh yes. I’ve been pointing out that the US political scale of left to moderate to right is 1 dimensional. For reasons I’ve never fathomed, that’s how the majority of people think about politics, despite the fact that every human on the planet thinks in 3-D every waking moment of the day.

I’ll note of course that part of any propagandist manifesto is to keep the peasants as barefoot and stupid as possible in order to best manipulate them. And damn, if we don’t have a lot of manipulated people around MDN. Quite distressing and sadly representative of my imploding, on an intellectual level, nation.

…their incurious minds or fear kept them inside a prison of their own making.

With, as I point out, some help from those who wish to ‘use’ such people, aka suckers.

But it’s not actually so simple. I believe one reason psychology is so incredibly primitive, even now (yes it is folks!), is that how we humans think is incredibly complex AND diverse. The whole concept of categorizing people into convenient slots does not work, unless one creates a gigantic matrix of indices, well beyond 3-D. Conclusion: People are a problem.

Propagandists work on as simplistic a level as possible and can obtain amazing results by treating people as cattle, in a relative sense. The human diversity problem is never solved. However, we do have certain traits that herald back to our long eras of tribal behavior, selection for which has contributed to the rise and proliferation of mankind on our planet. My favorite of these tribal behavior, one that is constantly cropping up in efforts toward totalitarianism is scapegoatism. Note the current scapegoats in this Trumpian Era.

Interestingly, we’re going to increasingly here the inane and asinine argument as we progress into this new era of overpopulation that we cannot afford to think anymore and therefore require some latest of totalitarian horror systems to think for us. That’s a constant them in dystopian literature. That’s a constant theme in contemporary politics. I’m hearing US Prime Minister Theresa May attempt to plant that idea in voter’s heads, the usual ‘I will lead you through the storm I have propagandized as deadly to us all, blahblahpukepuke.’

Over the past few years I’ve been attempting to study what I call ‘Desperation Mode Behavior’. It’s what’s used to brainwash people. Create a system of distress in the mind of the victim, watch the victim become inevitable irrational, then feed their now irrational mind into a totalitarian ‘cure’ or ‘solution’ to their desperation. It’s amazing to watch it play out through history past, present and undoubtedly future.

As soon as you refute every petroleum product in your home I will take you seriously.

(Just kidding…..you have no clue how much that involves!)

Dino juice

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 10:19 am ·

Strange accusation. Petroleum is too precious a commodity to burn in bloated automobiles or to light up an electric grid. We have other ways to do those things that don’t spew pollution. Why would anyone want to accelerate the burning of oil when it has more long term value when used in other ways?

One has to be ENABLED to refute every carbon fuel one uses in one’s life. Buying my own solar panels and battery for storage is actually on my shopping list for this year! The price has dropped 40% this past year. Does that scare you? Are you inspired to sell your Exxon and invest in Tesla?

(Please note that I am a fan of plastics and various other long-lived useful objects made from petroleum. Bringing them into the conversation is asinine diversion, isn’t it. You know that, don’t you. The topic is carbon fuels, remember?).

You can never trust yourself, can you? What’s that like? We could make a horror movie out of your lying.

Almux

Thursday, June 1, 2017 - 1:53 am ·

Stop with this stupid right-left stuff!
The matter goes about the planet Earth and the survival of mankind. Pollution kills any from right to left, it doesn’t care.
Having a president promising $ as a savior is making a GREAT MESS, not a great America!
This guy is a dangerous pretentious silly billionaire with a very, very, very SHORT view!

You are saying that based on your experience, while you personally could not estimate the EXACT weather conditions for tomorrow in your town, you therefore would not be able to predict the average daytime high temperature in your hometown for July next year. I suspect you might have enough data in your noggin to provide a fairly reasonable estimate, although the GOP still won’t believe anything you have to say unless you donate to their PACs.

Anyway, that is how statistics really works. Extrapolations can be very good guides because it is absolutely easier to predict a range of data into the future based on millions of points of data from an extended period of time. It is significantly harder to pinpoint a specific weather event at a specific location and time.

So does the entire oil industry. How much are we spending to prop up the terrorist-funding regime in Saudi Arabia just to ensure access to oil? How much of our military budget is tied to securing access to foreign oil?
You want to talk about subsidies? Let’s get real.

Anyone…and everyone…can find a way to say that any and every product is or was somehow subsidized. THAT is why it is a silly argument to make. Saying so doesn’t make someone intelligent, it makes them intellectually lazy. The only point in saying “so and so is subsidized” is to try to shut down debate – it isn’t to engage in open discussion. GM was subsidized, the electrical grid was subsidized, the telephone system was subsidized, the internet was subsidized, space exploration is subsidized, bug resistant food you eat was subsidized…etc., etc. It’s never-ending and therefore nonsensical to bring up. So please drop your holier than though, “I know best” attitude as it isn’t well deserved or accurate.

I am not a supporter driven by the feel good tree hugging aspect of this and I generally dislike immensely most government mandates to steer economic activity…however….this one seems a no brainer from other perspectives that aren’t openly considered.

I would vastly prefer electrification because it can reduce the value and need/demand for oil. Sure, folks usually focus on the carbon aspect…but really, I care about the fact that most of the oil producers in the world are despotic and troublesome for the United States. Rid the world on dependency of oil and Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, Iran and Iraq would crumble…as would the other states that depend on their largess. For me, it’s a national defense issue.

Exactly! It’s a win-win to get out of fossil fuels, especially IMPORTED fossil fuels. Renewables and a decentralized grid make America stronger and safer, and will save hundreds of billions a year in defense cuts.

Texas has the cheapest oil and gas in the country and substantial lignite deposits as well. It is also one of the states with the highest percentage of its electrical power generated by renewable sources. That would not be happening if wind and solar power weren’t competitive with fossil fuels. An example:

Georgetown, Texas, is the fourth-fastest growing city in the United States (it was first the previous year, and has been in the top ten for nearly a decade). It is heavy Republican territory, politically dominated by a large colony of retired executives at Del Webb’s Sun City Texas.

Georgetown is currently contracting with wind and solar producers for enough electricity to meet the entirety of the city’s requirements. Obviously, there are windy sunny days when the city is selling extra power to the state’s interconnected energy grid and calm cloudy days when it is buying power back, but on balance it is 100% green.

It is not doing that because the Sun City people have all developed dementia or turned into tree-hugging libtards. The policy was adopted because it saves money for the city’s taxpayers and utility customers. It saves money because green power is already competitive, and will inevitably grow more so as the technology improves and fossil fuels grow more expensive to extract.

Companies and governments who have the right frame of mind can reap enormous benefits from energy transitions. The Chinese are pretty much responsible for solar prices falling like lead balloons. A company like Tesla probably wouldn’t have survived 30 years ago. California has a booming renewable energy industry.

There are those industries who may be left behind during transitions. That’s why it’s so important to transition workers to new jobs where their skills may come in handy. It won’t always work, but no technological change has torn through the world without hurting other industries.

Let the rest of the world stay in it and reduce their plant and tree food footprints and at some point, we would be the only country emitting plant and tree food in the air. We could then charge the entire world for helping to fertilize their crops and also keeping them a little less cool…

The next time you cite a Forbes article as impartial science, you might try to read the underlying research.

Yes, the NASA data shows that Antarctic sea ice is, possibly, not receding. The data also shows that Arctic ice is receding at a completely unprecedented rate. The Northwest and Northeast Passages are now ice free for much of the year and the day when the polar icecap disappears completely in the summer is not that far off.

Because the Antarctic ice pack is much, much larger than the Arctic ice pack, the overall volume of polar ice has not been falling so rapidly. That part of the Forbes article is true, but it will not help the disrupted Arctic ecosystem one iota.

Scientists have come up with several models showing how the trends in Antarctic ice are completely consistent with a global temperature rise. Because the prevailing winds blow towards Antarctica, sea ice there tends to accumulate. Humid warm winds generate more snow to build up the ice pack than cold dry winds. Because the Southern Ocean is adjacent to a continent covered by glaciers, the sea ice is also being constantly replenished by icebergs calving and (in recent decades) by the collapse of several ice shelves. In any case, the situation in the Antarctic does not help the crisis in the Arctic.

In short, the article you cite as a refutation of global warming misrepresents the underlying research to the point of reaching the opposite conclusion.

Meh, good riddance. Musk is a fruitcake (as in delusional. He’s also a megalomaniac. And an arrogant prick). They can do better, I hope he has the nuts to leave (I doubt he does. He’s also a drama queen).